|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 188 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the officer, who is manning the office of the third respondent, is equivalent in rank to the Commissioner of Customs and that therefore, he cannot decide the matter - Held that: the petitioner is unable to lay his hands on the Notification of the Central Board of Excise and Customs appointing an officer in the rank of Principal Commissioner as the Revisional Authority under the Customs Act and N/N. 27/17 CE (NT) dated 23.11.2017 pertains only to appeals arising under the Central Excise Act - the writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent is held to be not maintainable.
-
2018 (2) TMI 494 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - whether the amount paid at the time of provisional assessment can be treated as pre-deposit of duty paid during the pendency of assessment or not? - Held that: - Admittedly the appellant has opted for provisional assessment and the assessment has been finalized later on. So, therefore the amount paid by the appellant during the pendency of adjudication proceedings shall be the equivalent amount paid pending adjudication - after finalization of assessment, whatever excess duty has been paid by the appellant is refundable.
The appellant is entitled to avail refund claim to excess duty paid by them before the finalization of the assessments - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 493 - CESTAT CHENNAI
100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus - case of Revenue is that some of the items imported by the appellants may not qualify as capital goods and the exemption already allowed is not sustainable - Held that: - the goods were duly assessed as capital goods by the competent officer at the port of entry. The same has not been varied by that officer. The goods were in warehouse.
In the case of Greenspan Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2013 (5) TMI 823 - CESTAT MUMBAI], again the Tribunal examined the same notification. It has held that when the appellant is a 100% EOU and the goods imported are used for the intended purpose, no demand will arise.
The denial of exemption under N/N. 52/2003-Cus is not sustainable - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 492 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Scope of SCN - case of respondent is that the department has not appealed against the invocation of extended period in the grounds of appeal - Held that: - The department in the grounds of appeal has not raised the invokability of extended period, which shows that they are not aggrieved with the finding of the Commissioner on the ground of non-invokability of extended period - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 491 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Import of restricted item - old/used digital multifunctional Print and Copying Machines - enhancement of value - Held that: - the imported goods in question are not restricted item - during the relevant period the impugned goods were not restricted and the adjudicating authority has invoked only Section 111 (d) to hold that goods are liable for confiscation. Hence the imposition of redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable and are required to be set aside - the redemption fine and penalty imposed set aside, without disturbing the enhancement of value - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 490 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Restoration of appeal - principles of natural justice - case of appellant is that they had not received the notice fixing the date of hearing as 27.10.2016 and therefore, neither the appellant nor the counsel could appear on the said date of hearing of the appeal - Held that: - The appeal is of the year 2005 and the Tribunal has been intimating all concerned through the cause list published that there will not be any adjournment in appeals upto the year 2007. We therefore find no circumstances insisting to restore the appeal to the files of the Tribunal - restoration of appeal application dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 489 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, in respect of additional duty of customs equal to excise duty - imported silk fabrics classifiable under the Tariff item No.5007 - denial on the ground that it was applicable only to the goods manufactured in India and not to the imported goods since there is a condition that there is no cenvat credit is availed on inputs.
Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of CC (Exports), Chennai Vs. Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 1106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that In cases where the exemption Notification stipulates two conditions, namely that the inputs should have suffered duty and that no CENVAT credit should have been availed, then the benefit of the Notification will be available only if both conditions are satisfied.
Benefit of notification cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 488 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Restoration of appeal - case of appellant is that the appeal should be restored being an order passed in the absence of their senior counsel on record - Held that: - The appeal has not been dismissed for default or non-prosecution on the side of the learned counsel for appellant. Instead, the Tribunal has gone though the grounds stated in the appeal memorandum and also the records placed along with the same.
The appeal has been disposed on merits and not on non-prosecution, therefore, there is no question of restoring the appeal in the file of the Tribunal. The remedy lies by way of an appeal.
The application is devoid of merits and does not have any grounds for restoring the appeal.
-
2018 (2) TMI 422 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Relief to prayer 30(ii) and 30(iii) of the plaint - Held that: - the defendant no. 3 has no real prospect of defending the claim as it has neither entered appearance nor filed its written statement or denied the documents of the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that there is no need to relegate the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence - the present suit is decreed qua defendant no.3 in accordance with prayer 30(ii) and 30(iii) of the plaint along with actual costs - suit stands disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 421 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - allegation pertains to the genuinity and legality of the DEPB licence - cross-examination - Held that: - the petitioner cannot insist upon the cross examination of the Investigating Officers - the petitioner would state that he had only dealt with the DEPB scripts and purchased the same from Mr.Satish Mohan Agarwal, New Delhi and he is no way connected with the allegations made in the SCN - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 420 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - rejection of transaction value - contemporaneous imports - Held that: - The valuation of imported goods is required to be done in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The transaction value of imported goods can be rejected only as per the provisions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules - In the present case, in respect of 32 Bills of Entry pertaining to imports, certain documents were recovered during the course of search from the laptop and mobiles pones. From among the documents recovered from the laptop and mobile phone, the department has recovered the invoices/commercial invoices pertaining to the goods imported under these Bills of Entry. Such invoices indicate that the goods were procured by the appellant from the foreign supplier at significantly higher prices than what has been declared to the department at the time of filing Bills of Entry - the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the transaction value of goods imported under the 32 Bills of Entry, in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
There is no infirmity on the part of the adjudicating authority in re-determining the value of the past imported goods on the basis of such invoices - there is no need for the Revenue to collect evidence in the form of contemporaneous imports.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 419 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - principles of natural justice - Held that: - there has been no discussion in the impugned order about various evidences produced by the Appellants before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim for sanction of refund - the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not based upon the merits and facts and the matter needs to be reconsidered - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 418 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Redemption fine - penalty - live consignment of Rough Marble - consignment of Marbles which were imported earlier or otherwise - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact that there was an excess quantity of 10.84 MT of Rough Marble Blocks which was seized and confiscated - argument of the Ld. Counsel that they were not aware of the quantum of Marble loaded by the supplier and the said Marble needs to be considered as rough and the gross weight needs to be considered is an unacceptable arguments - the redemption fine imposed is disproportionate to the value of the goods and needs to be reduced from ₹ 41,000/- to ₹ 27,000/-.
Penalty - Held that: - the ends of justice is will be met if imposed on this issue is fixed at ₹ 15,000/- - As regards the penalty imposed by the First Appellate Authority on a finding that the quantity of 118.27 MT of Rough Marble slabs which were excess than the quantity declared in respect of 12 Bills of Entry, I find that he was correct in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of goods, the same cannot be confiscated. To that extent, the impugned order is correct.
Since the liability for confiscation of the Rough Marble Slabs is upheld, the penalty imposed on the appellants for such violation also needs to be upheld. It is noticed from the records that the value of the Rough Marble Slabs which was found excess in respect of 12 Bills of Entry, was approximately ₹ 16.73 lacs, Keeping in mind the convention of Tribunal, and to meet the ends of justice, penalty imposed on the appellant on this issue is fixed at ₹ 1,50,000/-.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 417 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Benefit of N/N. 6/2012 Sl.No. 234 - import of goods declared as "Glass Fiber Reinforced Guypsum Boards (GRG Board)" of Tapered Edge 'Boral' brand - denial of cross examination - principles of natural justice - Held that: - on the one hand, the CTA laboratory where the samples of impugned consignment had been sent did not test presence/content of glass fibre. At the same time, the Customs laboratory has confirmed the correctness of the goods as declared in a number of imports made prior and subsequent to the one under dispute - Exemption N/N. 6/2006-CE only exempts goods imported Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Board (GRG) at Sl.No.234 (iv) without any condition thereto. Thus the insistence on IS standards by the customs authorities is not a requirement in the said notification.
The goods are not conforming to the standards of Gypsum Reinforced Gypsum Boards even when the Deputy Director, CTAL has stated in cross examination that they did test presence/content of glass fibre - We are also unable to fathom how even the request for re-testing of the samples made by the appellant has been dismissed peremptorily by the lower appellate authority for the reason that further re-testing would not serve any fruitful purpose.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 416 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation - assessable value to be adopted for demand of Central Excise Duty in the case of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) (PDS) and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) (Domestic) - Revenue was of the view that the appellant had paid duty on subsidized price instead of paying duty on the Refinery Gate Price - Held that: - the similar issue for a different period pertaining to the appellant came up before the Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refineries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2017 (4) TMI 323 - CESTAT BANGALORE] in which the Tribunal has held that the price or cost paid/received to/by an assessee or manufacturer (from independent buyer) constitutes the assessable value / transaction value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 415 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Debonding order - suppression of facts - validity of SCN - Held that: - the SCN is bad and barred by limitation. There is no allegation of any cotumacious conduct, suppression or mis-statement on the part of the appellant. It is apparent that the SCN have been issued by way of change of opinion and accordingly, the said notice is bad and not maintainable - also, it is evident from the facts that on the record that the consent of authority, namely the Development Authority have not been obtained and as such the show cause notice is bad on this score also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Grant of CHA License - Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 - validity of new regulations issued in the year 2004 vide order dated 01.10.2010 - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of SUNIL KOHLI & ORS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2012 (10) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that The examinations held under the 1984 Regulations did not get nullified with the enactment of the 2004 Regulations and the candidates who had qualified the examinations held under the 1984 Regulations are not required to again qualify the examination which may be held under the 2004 Regulations - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 338 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Imposition of ADD - Flexible Slabstock Polyol - import from Australia, the European Union and Singapore - statutory remedy - maintainability of petition - Held that: - the Court is not satisfied that the ground urged by the Petitioner before this Court regarding violation of principle of natural justice cannot be urged by it before the CESTAT. It is certainly within the scope of the proceedings before the CESTAT challenging the Final Findings as well as the consequential notification - the Court declines to entertain these writ petitions while reserving the liberty of the Petitioners to approach the CESTAT with fresh petitions in terms of the liberty already granted by the CESTAT - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 337 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - Held that: - issue has been settled in appellant's own case Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into a shore tank in a port in India should be the basis for payment of Customs duty. Consequential action, in accordance with this declaration of law, be carried out by the Customs authorities in accordance with law - the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the original authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Awaiting decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Apar Industries Limited (former known as Apar Limited) v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) [2011 (5) TMI 683 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Held that: - it is considered proper that the Tribunal should go slow to decide the issue which is before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Court is in sessin of the matter, following guidelines of the Hon'ble High Court in Titanor Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - reference is returned back to the original bench.
....
|
